Attorney For Gutierrez Family Says Tragedy Occurred Due to Baseless Hunch and Aggressive Police Tactics

img_3299.jpgLong-Awaited Civil Rights Trial Opened Wednesday, Nearly Three and a Half Years After Deadly Shooting on Gum Ave in Woodland –

Nearly three and a half years after the April 30, 2009 tragedy that saw Luis Gutierrez, a 26-year-old farm worker, shot and killed by three plain-clothed sheriff’s deputies working with the Yolo County Gang Task Force, the civil rights trial opened on Wednesday.

The start of the trial was delayed after attorneys for the defense alerted the judge to the planned protest and demonstration outside of the Federal Court Building.  Defense attorney Bruce Kilday told the court that this was a highly unusual situation and he, along with attorneys for the plaintiff, were concerned about the potential for prejudicial impacts on the jury.

As it turned out, it was less influential than previously feared, as Judge Karlton asked the jurors during voir dire whether they had noticed the protest, and none of them had.  Moreover, he instructed them to avoid any protesters and to not talk to them or anyone else about the case.

The federal jury panel drew from as far away as Weaverville, with only one of the jurors from Yolo County (Winters).  The nine-juror panel is composed of eight women and one man.

The trial is expected to last ten court days.

In his opening statement, Paul Caputo called the shooting a tragedy that occurred due to a baseless hunch by three plain-clothed sheriff’s deputies, Dale Johnson, Herman Oviedo and Hector Bautista, in an unmarked car.  The combination of their baseless hunch, unsubstantiated premise, and aggressive police work culminated in the shooting of Mr. Gutierrez on April 30, 2009.

Mr. Caputo noted that the mission of the Yolo County Gang Task force is to identify gang members in order to get them off the streets.  He called this a commendable goal, and expressed gratitude for the work they did.

At the same time, he argued that this work also requires balance, and that they need to follow regulations in order to not violate the constitutional rights of citizens.

He showed the jury photos of three deputies as they would have looked on that day in Woodland.  The clear implication is that Mr. Gutierrez would never have been able to know that these deputies, none of whom had ever had contact with him previously, were in fact sheriff’s deputies.

Mr. Caputo traced the final twenty-four hours of Mr. Gutierrez’ life.  He noted that the family of five lived in a small and cramped mobile home, however, they had put enough money together to look into buying their own home.

At the same time, Mr. Gutierrez was out of work and would go with his mother to a farm to see about work as a farm worker – however, the supervisor was not there and they would have to return later that day.

His mother would take the younger kids to school while Mr. Gutierrez did some chores that included raking leaves.

His big task that day was to get his driver’s license renewed.  He went to the bank to get money to buy insurance at Rosalia Insurance, and at 1 pm he went to the DMV where he passed both his driver’s and vision tests.

He headed home, east on Gum Ave, and there the stories of law enforcement and independent witnesses diverge.

The officers were traveling westbound on Gum Avenue when they saw Luis Gutierrez.  Deputy Oviedo said that he thought Mr. Gutierrez looked familiar – but in reality none of the deputies knew Mr. Gutierrez.

Deputy Dale Johnson got out of the car and asked to speak with Mr. Gutierrez.  Deputy Johnson claimed to have identified himself at that time, but neither of the others remember him doing so.

He also said that he pulled up his shirt to reveal his badge and his gun.  At this point, Luis Gutierrez saw the gun and ran.  The deputies claim he put his hand in his pocket as he ran.

When Officer Johnson caught up to him, he said he put his hands on Mr. Gutierrez but he slipped the grip.  He said Mr. Gutierrez then pulled out a pocket knife from his pocket – blade exposed.  Mr. Caputo made the point that somehow Mr. Gutierrez would have had to have run with the knife blade open in his pocket.

He then made either a slash or stab at Deputy Johnson and they opened fire.  After being shot in the back of the shoulder, he is said to have tossed the knife.

Mr. Caputo noted that there was no evidence of fingerprints on the knife and that the DNA, partially degraded, did not identify Mr. Gutierrez but rather could not rule him out.

Mr. Caputo then mentioned three critical witnesses – Javier Cabrera, Vienna Navarro and Lindsey Fuentes – who saw various portions of the pursuit as they drove past in their vehicles.  Mr. Caputo argued that none of these witnesses knew Mr. Gutierrez or his family and that they refute the official story as told by the police.

In the afternoon, Bruce Kilday for the defense gave his opening statement.

He argued, “The question isn’t that there was another way it could have been handled.  It is whether or not the deputies acted reasonably, whether they violated the rights of the Plaintiff.  You will have to decide if they acted improperly.”

He argued that the defendants will testify about their role on the task force.  They are proactive and reactive investigating and making contacts with the community, business owners, neighborhood gang members, anyone who can help.

Mr. Kilday argues that when they saw Mr. Gutierrez, he had a shaved head, baggy shirt and baggy shorts, and looked similar to others who were involved in gang activity, so they decided to talk to him.

He argued that when Deputy Johnson approached Mr. Gutierrez that he lifted his shirt and displayed his badge and gun, but Mr. Gutierrez took off running.  They yelled to stop.  Mr. Kilday argued that the fact that he ran created reasonable suspicion that created an actual investigation.  The deputies, he argued, wanted to interview him to find out why he ran and why his hand was in his pocket.

Mr. Kilday argued that when Mr. Gutierrez slashed at Deputy Johnson, he took out his gun but did not aim well.  There were six shots, some missed wildly.  One of the shots hit him in upper back/right shoulder and came out through his head.  He fell to the ground.  Bautista was driving the car up the street, and had turned around.  Gutierrez threw or tossed the knife as he fell.  Herman Oviedo said he threw it after he fell.

“Think about what they had experienced.  This was the first time Johnson had ever fired his weapon,” Mr. Kilday argued.

They tried to stop the bleeding but they could not.

He said that there was a smudged fingerprint on the knife but they could not ID.  A technician will argue that the DNA has the same markers as Gutierrez.

Later in the afternoon, Irma Gutierrez, the mother of Luis, would take the stand.

The trial is expected to last the rest of this week and the next two weeks.

—David M. Greenwald reporting

Author

  • David Greenwald

    Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

    View all posts

Categories:

Court Watch

8 comments

  1. I realy hope that justice is done and these officers are found guilty of murder because bottom line that’s what it was. If it were any one other than law inforcment they would have already been found guilty. They should get life sentences for what they did.

  2. Because this is a civil trial, not a criminal one, at most they would be held responsible for his murder, but not convicted of it. And they will not have criminal sanctions either.

  3. Foolish to attack the police or be ignorant of what a police badge looks like. There are a lot of gang bangers in Woodland and this guy is portrayed as an innocent guy, who just happens to like running from police with a knife in his hand. Whatever the true story is I hope it comes out, but the lesson for all is to not run and reach for a blade.

  4. Or the lesson is that the police failed to identify themselves, overreacted, and then concocted the knife story. We’ll see what comes out in the trial. Based on what I’ve seen so far, we’ll have no more answers at the end of this than we did coming in.

  5. [quote]Or the lesson is that the police failed to identify themselves, overreacted, and then concocted the knife story. We’ll see what comes out in the trial. Based on what I’ve seen so far, we’ll have no more answers at the end of this than we did coming in.[/quote]

    Do you have any evidence to support what MAY have happened? Sometimes there are no answers to why people do crazy things like use meth and attack cops with a knife.

  6. That’s been my problem from the start. He had no reason to knowingly run from police. So now you have to get into the meth explanation to explain the inconsistent behavior. But then you run into problems that he had done a serious of normal tasks in front of people all day with no sign of intoxication. moreover, you have the problem with the knife and even Dale Johnson couldn’t explain whether when he pulled the knife out of his pocket it open (and therefore he had been running with an open knife in his pocket). I guess we’ll see, I’m not that hopeful we’ll learn anything.

  7. This is the problem with our justice system because it is not equally fair to both sides. Could you just imagine 3 years after the deadly shooting incident the case has just to opened, the victims are already dead and they are still struggling with the justice that is not given to the family and love ones of the victims.
    police exam

  8. This is the problem with our justice system because it is not equally fair to both sides. Could you just imagine 3 years after the deadly shooting incident the case has just to opened, the victims are already dead and they are still struggling with the justice that is not given to the family and love ones of the victims.
    police exam

Leave a Comment